Yes it was a major decision, I am just saying one should try to understand where his image as a radical who alienates the left comes from, and not apply it indiscriminately. If in the speech he sounded moderate in many areas, perhaps that is because he was always so! He still had a "radical" vision of foreign policy.
If you consider a lot of bad ideas with no specifics delivered in Bush-glish the basis of a good speech, then I guess it was good. I hope his ratings continue to slide.
That is all.
Frankly, I'm surprised Bush hasn't dispensed with it by now. Hell, he ignores other laws, why not that one? :disgust:
That is all.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Dissipate
That speech was so full of bullsh!t I didn't even bother to watch it.
Maybe we should just back to the times when the SOTU was not a public speech, but just a letter to congress.
Frankly, I'm surprised Bush hasn't dispensed with it by now. Hell, he ignores other laws, why not that one? :disgust:
Nothing new, basically just a well articulated version of everything we've heard before with alot more applause
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Dissipate
That speech was so full of bullsh!t I didn't even bother to watch it.
Then how do you know it was full of bullshit? Did you read the transcript?
How do I know?
Simple. politicians are choke full of bullsh!t. they can't do anything but spew bullsh!t everytime their mouths open. Nearly all politicians consist of nothing but shameless liars.
***Corrected for factual content***
I never bothered to watch it in the first place. With this Administraion's history, you can't believe a damn thing he says anyway, so what's the point?
My wife watched a little of it and told me Bush didn't act nearly as arrogant as he usually does. LOL, maybe a little of the reality of how bad he's mucked it up is starting to sink in?
Nah. More likely Unca Karl sat Georgie down and gave him a lecture:
"Look you stupid screwup--if you fsck this up, our asses are TOAST come November! You'd better perform on my cues or I WILL replace you with a chimp--count on it!!!!!"
Summary "BE VERY VERY AFRAID! THE TERRRRARRR! THE TERRRAAARRR! THE WMDs! THE WMDs!Oh, and despite that fact that I am a Texas Oil Man, we should cut our oil dependence. Yeah. Really."
I think that it comes from many other things than this "one decision". He has alienated the left by not advising on major policy, inviting any of them into any discussions since NCLB (and then he even changed the rules on that one afterwards) and his flat out stating that (I'm having to paraphrase from memory) "I'm willing to work with anyone that agrees with doing things the way that I want them done".
For all the naysayers, think about the possibilty for people with organ failure or accident victims missing limbs....
While he might have mentioned something in his speech, I highly doubt this is an urgent issue to him. More likely, the uninsured are the butt of many jokes at the Bush ranch in Crawford.
And when they're done cracking jokes about the poor, the evil republicans get back to work on hating minorities, starving children, polluting the environment, making guns that kill people, and worshipping hitler. Right? :roll:
azazyel
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2000
- 5,872
- 1
- 81
Here is what had me yelling at the TV.
"I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform -- because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto."
This guy really has some balls, I'll give him that. Since he's stacked the SCOTUS he is going to pass something that less than 10 years ago was voted UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Not only that but it was a terrible idea when Clinton had it. Line Item Veto just gives congress a free pass to add any crap they want to a bill without any responsibility or reprisal. Why is it so much to ask that congress produces viable legislation.
"I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform -- because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto."
This guy really has some balls, I'll give him that. Since he's stacked the SCOTUS he is going to pass something that less than 10 years ago was voted UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Not only that but it was a terrible idea when Clinton had it. Line Item Veto just gives congress a free pass to add any crap they want to a bill without any responsibility or reprisal. Why is it so much to ask that congress produces viable legislation.
There's been a Supreme Court case on the line-item veto? Source? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only saying I don't remember it.
It seems the line item veto is much ado about very little. Even if they pass a constitutional version, according to the Cato Institite (which is in favour) it would only save $5billion a year.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html
Yes, but that estimate was made in '98, and given how the current GOP congress has only increased its appetite for pork, I'd guess the $5B figure is much higher today. I'd support a line item veto amendment. The current 'bundling' of spending bills is ridiculous, and it's abundantly clear a congress controlled by either party isn't going to limit spending on its own.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter